at the pentagon which -- can watch tonight at 8:00 there was a press conference today at the pentagon which you can watch tonight at 8:00 on c-span. >> general, i wanted to ask you upon theto reflect environment you have been operating in over the last two years.

i'm sure you saw today, sir, that secretary mattis wrote in a quote, we are divided into hostile tribes, cheering against each other, fueled on emotion and mutual disdain. because you are the president's he advisor on the threat to democracy -- key advisor on the threat to democracy, do you agree with secretary mattis, who you've known for so many years? do you believe there is a tribalism in this country that essentially threatens democracy, and to ask you to also reflect, as best you can, on how you see president trump changing over the last couple of years in his role as commander-in-chief? we will know you don't like to talk about the president but , this may be our last opportunity to ask you. gen. dunford: barbara, as you know, i have worked hard to remain apolitical and not make political judgments. your first question is not in my lane. i have worked hard to provide

military advice to the secretary, military advice to the president, other members of the national security council, and make sure that our men and women in uniform have the wherewithal to do their job. i'm going to stay in that lane. that gets to the second part of your question, which is i will not now, nor will i when i take off the uniform, make judgments about the president of united states or the commander in chief. i just will not do it. >> let me ask you this. how do you view, because you are the advisor on military matters, we have now seen troops in uniform, active duty, wearing red political hats. we have seen the president come into this building and make speeches discussing the democrat leadership. do you worry at all that way -- we have partisan politics brought into the military?

that would be a question for the secretary as well. does something need to be done about this? or do you think it is ok, just to let it go on? what are your concerns about the emergence of partisan politics into the ranks? sec. esper: i'll take that question. as i answered to congress during my nomination hearing, i've said this to some of you before as well, my commitment is to keep this department apolitical. i believe the best way to do that begins with the chairman and i behaving in an apolitical way. and from there, the leadership that we demonstrate, the values we emulate, work their way throughout the force. to me, that is the best way to do it. of course, we have rules and regulations throughout the services that say you cannot wear political items on the uniform, et cetera. and we will continue to enforce those standards. >> if i could just follow up on afghanistan for both of you. are the taliban wrong for saying that in 24 months all u.s. troops will be out of afghanistan? can you rule that out?

>> i'm not going to make any comments with regard to the diplomatic negotiations going on right now. they are where they are. we can let this play out and then we will answer your questions with regard to an agreement, if it ends up being an agreement. gen. dunford: i will emphasize, and the secretary and i have talked about this many times. some of you may not hear this if -- when you hear bits and pieces that may be speculation. one thing that has been clear in all of our meetings is any agreement will be conditions based. the president has been clear about afghanistan not being a sanctuary from which we can be attacked. this will be done in conjunction with with afghan leadership. >> you were the commander there and you used to deal with the afghan government. the afghan government feel they have been left out of these talks. do they have legitimate concerns? gen. dunford: i would leave the state department to characterize the specific interaction we have with the afghan government. i recently visited and met with

the minister of defense, ministry of the interior, and engaged with the afghan leadership in kabul virtually every day, to make sure there's transparency in any negotiation. i would view any agreement pending as something we are doing with and not to the afghan people. >> among all parties. as israel expands is targeting inside iraq and lebanon, can you help us understand the level of your concern about the political blowback for u.s. troops and the iraqi political environment as a result of the strikes? and mr. chairman, the military has long been concerned about, quietly concerned about the impact these strikes could have on the security of u.s. forces in the region. can you speak to that, please? >> to the first part i will say obviously we are in iraq at the invitation of the iraqi government. we are there and focused on one thing. working with and through the iraqi forces to execute the d

-- de-isis campaign. that is where we are focused. obviously we are concerned about anything that may impact our mission, our relationship or our , forces. quarks -- >> there was a point made of distancing the u.s. from some of these operations. it put a finer point on the idea that the u.s. really wants to stay away from -- >> we remain focused on iraq and supporting our forces in iraq to go after isis. operationsll of our are consistent with the agreements we have with the iraqi government. all of our operations in conjunction with the iraqi security forces focused on isis. with regard to force protection, we assess force protection across the region virtually every day. general mckenzie is in constant dialogue with the secretary and i about the needs for force protection. he makes adjustments based on tensions in the region. so, yes, are we concerned about it, we are not complacent about

force protection. we look at it every day. and we are very attentive to the operational environment when we make adjustments in force protection. >> i'm going to try one more time on afghanistan. as you know, there are still negotiations with the taliban. he said he expects assurances from the taliban that it will not be used in any way by al qaeda, other terrorist organizations again. the pentagon last month said we need a robust counterterror capability. so just be clear, do you need both the assurances and the capability? even though we do not know what the capability at this point would look like? you both could address that? >> i'm not sure which report you're referring to that came out of the department. lots of reports come out every day, as you all know. i will say again the state has , the lead on this, the ambassador and his team have done great work. we have people involved with him, as is general miller on the ground. i will defer to him to comment on what he wants to comment. but we are not going to get involved in commenting on the diplomatic process. >> that is not my point.

my point is, do you need a counterterror capability in afghanistan when there is a peace deal signed? >> i think you answered that already. i'm not trying to be evasive. >> we have enduring security interests in the region, diplomatic interests in the region. the form of our presence will change over time. to advance those interests. any discussion about capability will be benchmarked against the threat. as importantly against the capacity of our partners in afghanistan to deal with that threat. so, could we talk conceptually about a time in the future when the afghan security forces can deal with security in the country by themselves? you can. but we are not prepared to talk -- to have a specific conversation about when that may be, what capability would be associated with what operating environment. >> watch the entire briefing tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. you can also watch our programs online at c-span.org and listen

with the free c-span radio app. >> in 1979, a small network was -- with an unusual name rolled out a big idea -- let viewers make up their own minds. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. yearshas changed in 40 but it is more relevant than ever. c-spanvision and online, is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our first guest this as weg is andrew light, try to understand the impact in response to climate change. want to start with the paris climate of word. can you explain what that agreement seeks to do and how? guest: sure. i was on the u.s. team, i was a

negotiator for